1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the bank of the amount under the bank guarantee due to the contractor’s improper performance of obligations under the construction contract.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the court of appeal, noting that the court of appeal incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law, in particular Articles 560, 562, 563, 565 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, regarding the independence of the guarantor’s obligations from the main obligation. The court of appeal mistakenly investigated the circumstances of the debtor’s (contractor’s) violation of the main obligation, while the guarantor is obliged to pay funds under the guarantee if the beneficiary’s (customer’s) claim and attached documents comply with the terms of the guarantee. The court of cassation emphasized that the guarantor has no right to interfere in the relationship between the beneficiary and the principal, in particular, to decide whether the principal has fulfilled the obligations under the contract. The court also took into account that the terms of the bank guarantee provide for the payment of funds at the first request of the beneficiary without any additional conditions. The court of cassation noted that the court of appeal did not take into account the conclusions of the joint chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court as part of the Supreme Court of May 17, 2024 in case No. 910/17772/20, which deviated from the previous position regarding the guarantor’s obligation to verify the fact of the debtor’s violation of the main obligation.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the court of appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to satisfy the claim.
